Scouter99

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording: This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in. So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect. I completely agree with you, Rick, and I've posted to that effect in regards to Khaliela's issues with BSA over her Druidism. But DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. Trevorum is a Unitarian, he's a volunteer on the National religious group, so it looks like that's not DWise's issue. Clearly, there's something specific to DWise that makes him different, he says himself that he knew there were going to be problems. BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them. DWise does need to move on: we're talking about 25-15 years ago and a situation which he precipitated with what sounds like (from his own description) activist atheism. It stinks that he got kicked out, it stinks that anyone gets kicked out. It also stinks that people knowingly join a private club whose core principles they don't share, but consider themselves special and not subject to the rules then turn bitter when reality catches up to them. If part of this forum's mission is to aid non-members in their crusades, sure, consider me apologetic in dismissing DWise, but I expect an essay from one of you Greenbar fanboys on how Greenbar was gung-ho for changing BSA's core values one lawsuit at a time.

Under what circumstances did you cut your finger? Were you being careless, or was it simply an accident? Accidents happen, and they shouldn't be punished--that's why they're called accidents. If the cut was a result of carelessness, that's different. That covers the "should you have been punished" segment of your question. As for whether or not he should have cut corners off your Totin' Chip due to a non-scout incident: No. At scout functions he's your Scoutmaster, not your dad. At home he's your dad, not your Scoutmaster. If punishment was warranted, it should have been within the same context as the incident, which is your home life, not Scouting. Your dad needs to ask himself whether he would take any other boy's corners if they came in and told him they accidentally cut their finger while cooking dinner at home.

You need to get over it, or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program. If swearing as an atheist to do your duty to God didn't tip you off that you were going to intrinsically be in conflict with BSA, you either weren't paying attention, or you wanted that conflict. BSA didn't cause your suffering, you caused your suffering when you knowingly and willfully joined an organization which you knew was incompatible with your beliefs. You can camp without god in Campfire USA. We've answered your question: Refer to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle. There are already plenty of websites dedicated to tearing BSA down, I'm sure they can give you the ammo you're looking for. If some other people want to help tear down BSA, then some other people should join Campfire USA, too.

You need to get over it, or go to the local council and view the bylaws, or hire a lawyer and call the LA Times. Unlike the ban on homosexuals, the BSA's religious stance is right there on both the youth and adult application, it's in the oath, it's in the handbook, it's part of the program. If swearing as an atheist to do your duty to God didn't tip you off that you were going to intrinsically be in conflict with BSA, you either weren't paying attention, or you wanted that conflict. BSA didn't cause your suffering, you caused your suffering when you knowingly and willfully joined an organization which you knew was incompatible with your beliefs. You can camp without god in Campfire USA. We've answered your question: Refer to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle. There are already plenty of websites dedicated to tearing BSA down, I'm sure they can give you the ammo you're looking for.

More like "all of the anti-gay folks knew it would be next." And the pro-gay for that matter.

$275 incl meals, 6 days for my council. Some of the district guys try to play up the value by claiming that if this were a corporate training event, it would be $5,000.

Oh boy, packsaddle, "cowardly"? Free speech applies to the public sphere. We're all free to say anything, we are not free of the consequences of our speech. If the Unitarians decided to bash BSA within the literature of their award program, then of course they should not have been allowed to do so. They've got a pulpit where they can tell their youth what they think about BSA's policies, and that is the appropriate place to do it. WalMart did not sell a CD with songs that criticized it--why would they? That's not "cowardice" that's common sense and it's the way the world works. BSA is not the town hall, it's a private organization and it has the right and obligation to control the message its membership receives from official sources.

"A Scout is Thrifty: A Scout works to pay his own way and to help others. He saves for the future. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property." Maybe your neighbors need some yardwork done here in the middle of Spring. Maybe some families you know need a house sitter. Maybe McDonald's is hiring. Maybe there's time to sell the heck out of some popcorn or camp cards.

We live in a society where no one is responsible for their own actions, anymore. Bad grade? Bad teacher. Juvenile delinquent? Bad parents. Drugs? Bad neighborhood. Sex? Bad friends. And of course when no one is responsible for their own actions, then they're not liable for them, either. So of course a thief, pothead (even that smokes on Scout trips http://www.scouter.com/forum/working-with-kids/369176-alleged-drug-use-how-would-you-handle), bully, and underage drunk-driver can be Eagle Scouts. After all, BasementDweller, they're ~just kids~, and morality is subjective, and giving them Eagle could really ~turn him around~, and if you're not an Eagle then who are you to judge an Eagle?

They're not in my 2012 printing of the guide to Awards and Insignia, though.

Ryan Andresen is the only California kid I know of by name. Let's say BSA decided to be magnanimous and retroactively award him Eagle Scout despite his being gay. Great. He's still an atheist. He might not have known he was gay when he joined at 6, and maybe he decided he's an atheist just 2 years ago--either way, he is ineligible for membership and therefore ineligible for awards. Now, I've never been faced with the situation, and I really do feel for the kid. But frankly it was idiotic for him to go all that way and do all that work then sit in his Eagle BoR and tell BSA that he "has no duty to God" because he's an atheist, and oh by the way I'm gay. So, no, I don't believe BSA should send him an Eagle award. This is a voluntary membership in a private organization which is unambiguous about its stance on the centrality of religion, and Andresen knew that.

Has anyone heard whether the one-hit wonder and old farts plan to play at Jamboree now? They had cancelled when they found out (for the first time, I'm sure) that BSA didn't allow homosexuals and cancelled contingent on The Vote. If old-timers like Train are on the table, I think they should get David Bowie, he's got a new album to promote. Plus: he was gay, then he wasn't, so, perfect role model, right?

Did you pick "ThomasJefferson" as your username for the humorous irony of your childish petulance being associated with that name?

Not so fast, yourself. First of all, "red state/blue state" is a blunt instrument that really serves no use in making broad generalizations across time or demographics. Many states with republican governors vote for democrat presidents and vice versa. Many states alternate republican and democratic administrations with almost every cycle. "Christian" is also almost useless for categorizing people. Christianity, unlike Judaism or Islam, is not inherited. Christianity is, in essence, a mystery cult into which people are initiated then advance. Now, how many people do you know who simply tell you they're a Christian because that's what their parents were, or because when they can be bothered they go to a Christian church? I once knew a kid who said he was a Christian because he's white, and as silly as it was to hear it out loud, that's exactly how people think about religion. The fact of the matter is that, statistically, 75% of the teens in the country are categorized as "Christians" whether they're in a red or blue state, and whether they birthed their child or aborted it, and whether they abstained, had vaginal sex, or had oral sex. Religiosity--engagement in the religion--tells us what we want to know about the relationship between religion and behavior. However, accepting your blunt red/blue instrument, and using the 2012 Presidential election to categorize a state as red or blue, let's look at the matter: While it is true that red states have the highest teen birth rates, the decline in births between 1991 and 2010 is a 50/50 split between red and blue states in the top 10. In the top 20, there are more red than blue (12 to 8). Just as telling as any of this, however, are abortion stats, where blue states reign supreme, dominating the top 20 18-to-2. These stats are available from the Guttmacher Institute: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf Despite its "lbue-ness" Washington, D.C. not only had the highest birth rate in the nation in 1991 (110 per 1000), it also had the highest abortion rate in the nation with 81/1000. In fact, the Red teens of DC aborted more 1.5 times more babies than the blue teens birthed in Mississippi (the state with the highest 2010 birth rate). I don't exactly consider dumping the human product of bad sexual decisions into bio-hazard bins to be incinerated like trash to be a better solution than birth. What tells us anything about all of this is not birth rates or abortion rates--those only tell us how the teens dealt with their bad choice. I dare say I'm damned proud that "red" teens are birthing the babies rather than killing them. What you want are pregnancy rates, which are in the Guttmacher numbers I linked.

Unless National elects not to validate the application. Section 9.0.1.10 of your GtA. Right, until some ignorant District guy rejects one of your Scouts' Eagle projects because it "won't last long enough" and then you'll be beating down the door to open the GtA back up. I didn't say right or wrong, I just said that the fact of the matter is that Eagle is not like every other rank, because National issues it whether you like it or not.

I was trying to think of a "Friendly" way to tell him to get lost.

No one goes to debugging to find replies, and if anyone is watching the debugging threads (however doubtful) I'm sure they don't need off-topic stuff clogging them up.

Your title, like HuffPost's, is false. The law has not been passed by the second chamber of California's legislature, nor has it been signed by its governor. Both might be likely, but until then, no, California Boy Scouts have not lost their tax exempt status.

Unless National elects not to validate the application. Section 9.0.1.10 of your GtA.

That's a cool find. Never seen anything like it, though, in answer to your questions.

Same for me; it was fine, then I clicked the "back" button from a thread to get back to the forum and all the content was gone except the subforums.

16,000 members in 48 states? I don't see why it would be.

You missed the 2nd duplicate in the Working With Kids subforum.

It was a bad idea to get into theology with him. Jesus didn't say a lot of things; your personal misgivings about Paul don't mean squat. Et cetera, etc. Instead of appealing to him and possibly engaging hi min an internal dialogue, you've just put him on the defensive if he even finishes reading it past the first sentence which would make any Baptist laugh.

Let's all open a new thread every time we run across an article on this issue.